AMAZON AND GOOGLE WANT TO TRIPLE NUCLEAR ENERGY PRODUCTION
March 17, 2025 / /
With all the attention on autopens, Elon Musk, and the Ukraine in the news lately, there are a lot of stories being ignored that I think are quite significant, and that deserve some high octane speculation, and that's true of today's article shared by K.M. (with our gratitude):
Amazon, Google sign pledge to support tripling of nuclear energy capacity by 2050
There are a couple of particular statements in this article that grabbed my attention and which, I think, is indeed the crux interpretum for the short article, and which provokes my high octane speculation of today. It's this:
Major companies such as Amazon (AMZN.O), opens new tab and Google (GOOGL.O), opens new tab on Wednesday signed a pledge to support the goal of at least tripling the world's nuclear energy capacity by 2050, on the sidelines of the CERAWeek conference in Houston.
...
"We are truly at the beginning of a new industry," U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright told Reuters in an interview at the CERAWeek conference on Tuesday.The pledge is expected to gain more support in the coming months from industries including maritime, aviation and oil and gas, said the World Nuclear Association (WNA), the nuclear industry group that facilitated the pledge, in a press release.It adds on to the vow from over 30 countries, which also aimed to triple capacity by 2050 in 2023.Nuclear energy, a source of clean power, generates 9% of the world's electricity from 439 power reactors, according to WNA....It has also become a compelling solution for power-guzzling data centers, with Big Tech firms already having signed multiple billion-dollar deals with utilities. (Italicized emphases added)
So we note three things: (1) The goal is to triple the globe's output of power production by nuclear means by 2050; (2) this is heralding the beginning "of a new
industry"; and (3) the assertion that nuclear energy is "clean." The
article then ends by noting the skyrocketing price of uranium oxide,
which leads one to conclude that the kind of nuclear power production
that is in view in the article is production via fission
reactions, since uranium would be used in most fission reactors, though
there are compelling designs for thorium-based fission reactors. My
point in dwelling on fission is merely that the claim that such reactors
are "clean" is, at the minimum, stretching the point, for no fission
reactor is "clean", and every fission reactor produces by products -
nuclear waste - that themselves have to carefully stored. For those who
think that fission reactors are "clean" I have three phrases: Three Mile
Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima.
But perhaps we're looking at something
else being signaled by this article. Recently China set another record
for a sustained fusion reaction of 1066 seconds (see today's tidbit).
Fusion, by comparison to fission, is a much cleaner process, and while I
continue to maintain that there are dangers to fusion reactors that
"they" are not telling us - like sudden and catastrophic breakdown of
the containment of a fusion plasma, similar in fashion to the breakdown
of gravitational and electromagnetic containment in stars (with a
similar result) - fusion reactors are, from the standpoint of
byproducts, nowhere near as "dirty" as a fission reactor. So the phrase
"we are at the beginning of a new industry" perhaps is referring to the
expected coming breakthroughs in controlled hot fusion reactors.
The question then becomes rather
different, and it is one that Catherine Austin Fitts has warned about
many times in her broadcasts and her quarterly wrapups that we record:
the massive amounts of power are going to be needed to run two things:
(1) the expected emergence of artificial intelligence and data centers;
and (2) the expected world of "digital currency" which, as most people
know, consume more energy than a panzer division to run, if I may borrow
the phrase of Ms. Fitts once again.
In other words, the article is a strong
indicator that Mr. Globalooney plans to go forward with his plans for
artificial intelligence and a cashless "digital currency" world. But all
of it depends on being able to make that controlled hot fusion work,
and of course, you'll have noticed that the one thing they never
talk about in their fusion euphoria is the amount of electrical power
required to power those massive electromagnets that contain the fusion
plasma to power the AI's that mine the digital currencies. There's
always a cost to the manufacture and minting of money, howsoever it is
made: from coins in a roller mill to blips on a computer screen. That
cost of money manufacture has a name, and it is seigniorage, which is
usually a profit made by the mint making the money, but technically,
it's merely the cost of money production. I have to wonder, therefore,
why the electrical power requirements for the big magnets are never
discussed: will it really be cost effective to build out such an
infrastructure when compared to, let us say, the costs of producing
pennies in a roller mill?
I don't know about you, but when I look
at the comparative infrastructures of rolling mills, printing presses,
and cutting machines, versus that of tokamak electromagnets, cooling
towers, artificial intelligence, and crypto-currencies, it strikes me
that the whole thing seems more expensive than it might be worth,
especially as the technocratic infrastructure needed to run and maintain
the latter is so much more cost intensive... just a thought. And while
we're noticing things that "they" do not like to talk about, you'll also
have noticed that missing entirely from the discussion is any mention of cold fusion....
See you on the flip side...
(If you enjoyed today's blog, please share it with your friends)
Posted in You Tell Me
No comments:
Post a Comment